• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

That is some argument. I seem to recall conservatives loving that argument in battles they lost eventually.

Btw, you realize I'm not talking about the entire law, right?



You are not going to change any part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.





Why do you keep posting that quote? It doesn't apply here.



It applies everywhere.

I'll post whatever quote that I want to post, you aren't the boss here and you will never be my boss.

Deal with it.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
What exactly do you think involuntary servitude is? Because I do not think it means what you think it means. Especially when you said that owning other people was already illegal when the 13th amendment was enacted. Have you studied American history? Say, around the 1860s? Seriously, I don't think you understand what involuntary servitude is.

At what point did I say it was illegal before the thirteenth amendment? Want to quote that for me?

And that's generally what is proposed to do to the Boy Scouts if they keep discriminating. And let me tell you, the BSA does not have the kind of money to build its own buildings. Nor to pay full price for the space it uses for the Jamboree. The Boy Scouts gets a lot of benefits from the federal government. And the price they have to pay for those benefits is that they can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or many other elements. Honestly, the program shouldn't be sex-exclusive, either. The Girl Scouts and Venturers (who don't engage in all this discriminatory BS) are a different organization.

Yeah, that is nice and all. I don't care.

Quoting this quote. I like it very much.

It doesn't apply here.
 
You are not going to change any part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


How is that argument working for conservatives and gay marriage? I'm guessing they aren't about to lose or anything.






It applies everywhere.

It only applies where there is right of people. No one has the right to access other peoples property, to force people to associate with them, or force people into servitude.

I'll post whatever quote that I want to post, you aren't the boss here and you will never be my boss.

Deal with it.

Someone has to inform you of your errors. How else are you going to learn?
 
What war? It's a step forward for accepting people as they are.

Personally, if they asked me I would have just removed any policy whatsoever on scouts or leaders. Leave that to the individual troops.

Well it's certainly a step somewhere.

As I wrote, it remains to be seen what will happen to the Boy Scouts as a result. It may be that enough people are turned off by the politicizing of Scouting that they go elsewhere, and that has a negative impact on the Boy Scouts.

If they chose to leave, that would be their right. However, I wouldn't expect such freedom of association to be applauded by those demanding freedom of association.
 
I don't think businesses have the right to discriminate against people based on factors such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc

If it's operated as "private" only open to dues' paying members, I think they can in many jurisdictions. Country clubs being a classic example.
 
No one has the right to access other peoples property, to force people to associate with them, or force people into servitude.



Someone has to inform you of your errors. How else are you going to learn?

People have the right to access businesses that are open to the public.

Someone has to inform you of your errors. How else are you going to learn?
 
I don't think businesses have the right to discriminate against people based on factors such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc

Yes, for some reason people believe that all other rights are somehow trumped if you want service from a business. I know.
 
Businesses don't have the right to discriminate

Yes, you believe you have the right to involuntary servants, the right to enter and use other peoples property, and of course, the right to force people to associate with you. Thanks for reminding me.

Want to start practicing logic at some point?
 
Why is this so damned hard to understand? Pretty much everybody would agree that you don't put prepubescent boys and girls together in the same tent and you damned sure don't do it when they're teens. You also don't send some adult male off into the wilderness all alone with a group of girls. That's pretty easy to understand but for some weird reason that same common sense shouldn't apply to homosexuals? Why the hell not!!??
 
Neither of those statements are particularly true. The Boy Scouts, as an organization, is indeed run by loony Mormons, but the individual troop leaders vary as much as anyone else. Same with the individual members.



If that's true, it's probably because conservatives keep trying to reduce them to subhuman status and strip away their rights. Would you support a faction that was trying to do that to you? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's positions on the fourth amendment, guns, or fiscal policy, however.



Pretty much no part of this is true. Scouting has nothing to do with a proposition about hard work. It's about community service, the outdoors, and teamwork. Those are the three elements that pretty much every scouting activity is about. I've been involved with scouting for eighteen years. You can trust me on this. But let's hit the other nonsense assertion. "Errg, librulz hate hard werk!" Some of us (because liberals are less homogeneous in their positions than conservatives) view success as a team activity. Not the individual "I did it all by myself" nonsense that some conservatives (apparently you) like to tout. The idea that a person's success comes from them and them alone is a fantasy.



Race card! Those poor whites, so discriminated against by only having nine times as much average wealth as blacks.



Right, that's why the left keeps doing all that "rich bashing" that conservatives get so incensed about. Because we're secretly oligarchs who want to ensure that the wealthy keep all the money. That's why we keep deregulating business and slashing taxes on the rich and protecting their offshore money. Do you only get your information in the form of talking points?



And then the slippery slope. Because apparently there's a similarity between banning a demographic from enjoying an American institution and having difficult requirements for an achievement. Man, if we let those blacks into our schools, how long before you only need a 40% to graduate and get your diploma? See how stupid that sounds?



What exactly do you think involuntary servitude is? Because I do not think it means what you think it means. Especially when you said that owning other people was already illegal when the 13th amendment was enacted. Have you studied American history? Say, around the 1860s? Seriously, I don't think you understand what involuntary servitude is.



And that's generally what is proposed to do to the Boy Scouts if they keep discriminating. And let me tell you, the BSA does not have the kind of money to build its own buildings. Nor to pay full price for the space it uses for the Jamboree. The Boy Scouts gets a lot of benefits from the federal government. And the price they have to pay for those benefits is that they can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or many other elements. Honestly, the program shouldn't be sex-exclusive, either. The Girl Scouts and Venturers (who don't engage in all this discriminatory BS) are a different organization.



Quoting this quote. I like it very much.





I really like your post.

I was going to read through this thread and reply to some posts, but you've pretty well got all of my talking points covered.

Robert Green Ingersoll was a great man. He was a staunch, conservative Republican and an agnostic. He would be totally out of place in today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Yes, you believe you have the right to involuntary servants, the right to enter and use other peoples property, and of course, the right to force people to associate with you. Thanks for reminding me.

Want to start practicing logic at some point?

No, you believe you can make nonsense up and people will not laugh at your weak posts :lol:
 
I know gays and they all are effeminate.


Wrong. You think they're only gay if you recognize it. (Why? Well, who knows?) You have met many, many gay people, men and women, without having the faintest clue about their orientation.

Everyone has, without exception.
 
How is that argument working for conservatives and gay marriage? I'm guessing they aren't about to lose or anything.








It only applies where there is right of people. No one has the right to access other peoples property, to force people to associate with them, or force people into servitude.



Someone has to inform you of your errors. How else are you going to learn?



You are the one who is making errors.

The ideas that you push worked out great for the G-nO-P last November, eh?





"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
No, you believe you can make nonsense up and people will not laugh at your weak posts :lol:





The man's living in a dream world where he makes the rules and the rest of us follow them.

I may put him on my ignore list.
 
You are the one who is making errors.

The ideas that you push worked out great for the G-nO-P last November, eh?

What is the G-nO-P? Google returned a big fat zero on that.

If you mean GOP, then no, I'm not a republican.
 
No, you believe you can make nonsense up and people will not laugh at your weak posts :lol:

Nothing I said was made up. You desire involuntary servants. It's pretty easy to understand really.
 
You have met many, many gay people, men and women, without having the faintest clue about their orientation.

Everyone has, without exception.

An estimated 9 million Americans -- or nearly 4 percent of the total population -- say they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, according to a new report released this week from the Williams Institute, a think-tank devoted to LGBT research at UCLA.

Bisexuals make up slightly more than half that group, 1.8 percent of the total U.S. population, and they are substantially more likely to be women than men.

therefore gays only make up about 2% of the population, I doubt that very many heterosexuals have met many, many gay people :shrug:
 
Why is this so damned hard to understand? Pretty much everybody would agree that you don't put prepubescent boys and girls together in the same tent and you damned sure don't do it when they're teens. You also don't send some adult male off into the wilderness all alone with a group of girls. That's pretty easy to understand but for some weird reason that same common sense shouldn't apply to homosexuals? Why the hell not!!??

If you force yourself on somebody else, it's rape. So unless the other scout is also gay (and says you can), you're not allowed to stick your dick in his butt. It's not like it's never happened before at a scout camp. There were gay scouts before, and will be again. And the world will continue to revolve around the sun.

How did they stop it before? Do you really think there were no gay scouts doing it?
 
therefore gays only make up about 2% of the population, I doubt that very many heterosexuals have met many, many gay people :shrug:





If those heterosexuals stayed home they probably didn't meet many people at all.

If they got out as much as most people they would likely meet more than a few gay people.

Do the math.
 
Last edited:
therefore gays only make up about 2% of the population, I doubt that very many heterosexuals have met many, many gay people :shrug:

If (according to your figures) two out of every one hundred people you've ever met is gay--or let's say half that, since I'm in a generous mood--then yes, it's a hell of a lot of people.

Think about it for a minute.
 
Back
Top Bottom